From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-176.mta1.migadu.com (out-176.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90DC1331A63; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764170688; cv=none; b=jprp02r+7cOv4sHzNBzsNQXKTO9Qxf98Wk/iXzVED1Z3Br4XP2Bdb8hureg7ZD0+Ep2CXAauVyxzmQaBxqgFotx5J2lBobdYNeRV1sC8NQEPbxYJGUe2HqkqbARxLaSfWOyxe75Hl2qt0uODLgafwPbg36PCjGUfTSQJwV5jcPA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764170688; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wAvDKyglR4m9vT8x0sHCs+uKoN8sOn6AnjsZ8Szp+Ns=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Lx1q3KV6ncs3nbdgBq2vzAh8ClTIdCPzo4x2ilKQQ210AwFk37JOxBkaJZskBP9OJeM6lg5FYTLSdiD47DfVNTsejEHquo95RH4mRHMtjDekv5cnSM5jhcgrx2l/lj14P4vWMA8xA+IGAdJ94S7ErxN1vmIh50OTl9H+yRtveGA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=hENwIPBm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="hENwIPBm" Message-ID: <4d8120f7-f3b6-4654-9b14-0ee7da5f87ac@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1764170674; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JlXVYH2N0uf4TuTCjfA55TOuKuKC8GW35Olp9oQqllc=; b=hENwIPBm43Kfz1cLH0FSUAnRheIQNhinWcOnnLpYijMYsZqYzFdUn/HKhrlKDHl9CPTIf5 qMEIJ4cDL9rja3MMzSs6Q3/FpJaooakAvHHmt9RrUTFZfY1fUCRFNNUp7FIp8gZA9r5P4S 0xNtqNUpEYQQuqBN0qIWYV9OOGAdqbY= Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 23:24:09 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v12 2/7] bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_array maps To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jolsa@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, dxu@dxuuu.xyz, deso@posteo.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, shuah@kernel.org, kerneljasonxing@gmail.com, chen.dylane@linux.dev, willemb@google.com, paul.chaignon@gmail.com, a.s.protopopov@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com, yatsenko@meta.com, tklauser@distanz.ch, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@kernel.org, clm@meta.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev References: <20251126145039.15715-3-leon.hwang@linux.dev> <07707b44fc9032398db551041498d6265ccf0a0313ecd8779bd1fa82a7d96409@mail.kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Leon Hwang In-Reply-To: <07707b44fc9032398db551041498d6265ccf0a0313ecd8779bd1fa82a7d96409@mail.kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 2025/11/26 23:11, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h >> index d84af3719..01a99e3a3 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h >> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h > > [ ... ] > >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c >> index 1eeb31c5b..67e9e811d 100644 >> --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > > [ ... ] > >> @@ -398,10 +405,11 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value, >> struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map); >> u32 index = *(u32 *)key; >> void __percpu *pptr; >> - int cpu, off = 0; >> + void *ptr, *val; >> u32 size; >> + int cpu; >> >> - if (unlikely(map_flags > BPF_EXIST)) >> + if (unlikely((map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) || (u32)map_flags > BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)) >> /* unknown flags */ >> return -EINVAL; >> >> @@ -409,7 +417,7 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value, >> /* all elements were pre-allocated, cannot insert a new one */ >> return -E2BIG; >> >> - if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST)) >> + if (unlikely(map_flags == BPF_NOEXIST)) > ^^ > ? No such change in this version. It seems that this change was inferred from v11 to v12 by AI itself. Thanks, Leon > Does changing this from bitwise-AND to equality break flag combination > handling? The old code checked (map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST), which would > trigger for any flag combination including BPF_NOEXIST. The new code only > checks (map_flags == BPF_NOEXIST), so if userspace passes > (BPF_F_CPU | BPF_NOEXIST), the BPF_NOEXIST flag gets silently ignored > instead of returning -EEXIST as before. > > While all elements in percpu_array maps are pre-allocated and BPF_NOEXIST > should always fail anyway, silently ignoring a flag the user explicitly set > seems inconsistent with the principle of rejecting invalid flag combinations > at validation time. > >> /* all elements already exist */ >> return -EEXIST; >> > > [ ... ] > > > --- > AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. > See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md > > CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19708012130